Unity 08
The above link is to the Unity 08 campaign's official website. The group's stated objective is to have an online convention of 20,000,000 people and to have a ticket of one person [man or women] from each of the two major parties. They claim that the partisanship in this country is at such a high level that we must return to centrist policies. As is natural when you take sides with both parties on different issues, the group has an ever so slight libertarian bent [in my opinion at least]. So here are my questions.

What factors have led this country into such a level of discourse/partisanship?

Do you think the Unity08 Campaign can accomplish it's objectives, or even come close? Why/Why not?

Do you believe that it is possible to reform the two party system, or do you believe it should be done away with completely? Why?

CP

What factors have led this country into such a level of discourse/partisanship?

It can pretty much be summed up in one word: Iraq. There's a lot riding on whatever happens there, and it's widely believed that it either is adversely affecting our national security, or would do so if we screw up too much. But when it comes to most other issues, I think the real problem with the two parties is not that they're too far apart, but that they're too alike. That's why I'm a bit leery of this whole "Unity" movement.

Do you believe that it is possible to reform the two party system, or do you believe it should be done away with completely? Why?

I don't know how you could do away with it, exactly. It's not like outlawing political parties is much of an option. If you mean opening it up to more parties, through runoff elections or other expedients, then I could see the value in doing so, but I would only advocate doing it on the congressional level. Too much attention already is being focused on presidential elections, so we need something to generate more voter interest in Congress. By focusing more on Congress, and opening it up to more than just the standard two parties, we can make elections less a matter of who wins and who loses, and more of a way of getting different ideas on the table that can be debated and haggled over.

What factors have led this country into such a level of discourse/partisanship?

A couple of points.

1. Throughout our history we’ve had periods of divisiveness and partisanship. I’m not sure it’s any worse than at other times. Certainly we are not on the brink of another Civil War.

2. Iraq is an element, but other things have helped set the stage. I’m not sure where or when the currend divide started, but some of the elements involved include the 60s revolution, the counter revolution, Clinton’s impeachment and the disputed 2000 election. Irac seems to have been the last straw.

Do you think the Unity08 Campaign can accomplish it's objectives, or even come close? Why/Why not

I don't know, but my guess is that any success will be limited. Voters may send a message in 06 and 08, but I doubt it will be strong enough to change things.

Do you believe that it is possible to reform the two party system, or do you believe it should be done away with completely? Why?



I’m put in the rather awkward position of partially agreeing with Blackstone. I don’t think parties can be outlawed. Funding changes have been made, but that apparently hasn’t worked.

Speaking of runoff, etc. There are currently five (The Libertarian candidate ws excluded from the four way debate ) candidates in the Texas Governor’s race. The person getting a plurality of votes wins. Our next Governor will be elected by a plurality, perhaps a razor thin plurality - prediction: four years of bitter division.

Excellent topic CP.

What factors have led this country into such a level of discourse/partisanship?

Raised in a political family I’ve had my ear to the political rails for quite some time. I disagree with Blackstone on Iraq, it’s simply another dividing point. When Reagan was President with a Democratic congress, major initiatives were accomplished: Reagan’s economic plan and Star Wars defense plan readily come to mind. There was “some” element of non-partisan "progress".

Like BoF, I took this question as the source of the current political divide. I’ll probably get beat up for this and it’s only a casual observation, but until Rush Limbaugh came along, there wasn’t a single source of main stream media political “discussion” where one side did nothing but pound the other side.

Then along came the “independent” council whose sole purpose was evidently to hang President Clinton, as far as I’m aware they never indicted or went after a single republican. I’m not saying partisanship didn’t exist before the eighties and the Democrats get out of jail free here, but the GOP “kicked it up a notch” over the last twenty years.

Do you think the Unity08 Campaign can accomplish it's objectives, or even come close? Why/Why not?

No. Here are some excerpts from their FAQ’s.


The VP has no veto powers, the power would still be with the party represented by the president. I think it’s a good idea that the other party has a seat at the table for observational purposes.


The problem is with the two party system and the way they “fund” themselves. In my mind this is where the opportunity lies for a viable third party: change their funding mechanism.


Although this is only a means to the organizations goals, I sincerely hope that we never see political internet voting of any fashion. There’s already enough speculation and suspicion with many of the current e-voting machines.

The goal of this group is admirable, I just don’t think their plan will have the “jolt of reality” they’re seeking. Since their goal is solely focused on the executive branch, those in the legislative branch won’t have to worry about loosing their jobs.

Do you believe that it is possible to reform the two party system, or do you believe it should be done away with completely? Why?


I’ll respond to this and the third question. Congress is where the real problem lies and it’s going to take a unique third party, differentiating themselves with ethics and funding mechanisms, or a complete reformation of the current parties.

I really don’t think either party wants to reform themselves or the way they operate, they have no real motivation and I don’t think Unity08 is the answer. It’s going to require a third party spanning from the grass roots to the national level that can send candidates to either state or national congresses and convince voters that their only interests are those of their constituents.

But until Iraq came along, the political divide was still manageable. You mention bipartisan accomplishments during the Reagan era, but there were also bipartisan accomplishments during the Clinton era, such as welfare reform and balancing the budget. Even the early Bush II era had some measure of bipartisan success (at least, depending on your view of things) with No Child Left Behind and the Medicare prescription drug package. But since Iraq came to dominate things, the political divisions have gotten downright ugly and nasty, unlike ever before in our lifetimes.

Again, I partially agree with you. Iraq is part of it, but what do you mean by "unlike ever before in our lifetimes"?

Do you mean my lifetime which started in 1942 or our youngest members who began life in the late 1980s or early 1990s?

I personally remember other contentious times: Vietnam, the Watts Riots, slaying of civil rights workers in the South, Watergate, and many other dividing points. I don't know how you go about quantifying something like this and doubt any single factor analysis, like Iraq, is the whole story.

You could say Iraq, then you'd have to trace it back to the 2000 election. If you did that, you would then have to go back to the Clinton years and all the drama associated with that. But then you'd have to discuss the Bush I era and Reagan. You'd then have to trace it back to Carter and malaise, and before that Nixon. You'd then touch upon Vietnam and Kennedy. The latter was a reaction to the Eisenhower years, which in turn, was a reaction to the FDR/HST years. I'd then go further to the Hoover era, and then to the "roaring 20s" which in turn was the spawn of the progressive era, which evolved out of the gilded age. Before that, you could point the fingers at sectionalism and the civil war. Before that, I'd blame Jackson and before him, the Jefferson revolution of 1800, which in turn, was created from the rise of federalism and prigs like Alexander Hamilton. In short, I blame the founders for creating a system whereby disagreements could be hashed out through elections of which, are conducted in peace through the ballot box. I don't lament what has happened, nor will I ever. Partisanship is what makes this country great. And whether or not my party is "down" or not, I know it's part of the great political process that the founders created in all of their wisdom.....some it rather unintentionally.

It will only end once I convince every member that the democrats are right.

It depends on what type of partisanship your talking about. It seems many people tend to tow the line without much thought because of their party loyalty.

I think many people, much like prayer, tell themselves everyday that this is the party i'm voting for so it becomes true no matter how illogical it may be or what type of evidence it's supported by. So thirty years later they stop looking at ideals objectively and hear what they want to hear. I mean how many democrats mistook the im's for e-mails even though it was pointed out repeatedly by some of the more conservative posters? Even after it was put in large letters and bolded democrats continued to confuse the two. Why? Because it's what they wanted to hear. Much like the 600,000 figure in Iraq, some people seemed almost excited to see the study and it was released just before the election -- even though if true it's a horrible tragedy. I mean really who want's to hear that 600,000 people have died? Apparently some people do. Ya ya, any bad news is good news.... So as far as that type of partisanship is concerned I think it's horrible for any country.

I believe this is probably the main reason for the "divide" people just wont listen. When I moved in with my significant other she was very opposed to the war, believed Fahrenheit 911 and all that other jazz, which of course as many of you know i'm just the opposite. However we love each other any she actually listens to me so she no longer thinks everyone who supports the war is a misguided person (and knows about the half-truths in Fahrenheit 911 now to).

This is nothing new, most adults close off their ears at a certian age and only open there mouths instead of their minds. We just have more communication methods to open our mouths now.

What a broad generalization.

What specific age does this occur?

What corroborating evidence do you have?

What factors have led this country into such a level of discourse/partisanship?

I'll take a little different slant on this. Partisan politics has become big in the publishing industry and parts of the entertainment industry. So, regardless of Iraq, Katrina or other recent events, there are those who benefit from the partisanship outside of politics, as in profiting from the sales of books and advertising.

This of course depends on an audience out there willing to shell out the bucks for the books and watch the entertainment. The audience members exhibit an old characteristic of human nature: Life would be swell if it wasn't for those nasty (fill in the blank).

This can be brought down to specifics, but the list would be real long.

Do you think the Unity08 Campaign can accomplish it's objectives, or even come close? Why/Why not?

I don't think there will be much interest in this project. There's a missing element in here that went away in the 2000 campaign, and that's the hope that something can be done to fix politics in general. The notion had some appeal during the 1990s, but without a rich person throwing money away at a campaign, The Big Two run the show.

I won't dismiss Internet fund-raising though. That strikes me as having a possibility if done right. I'm not sure what the right way is, and if I did, I'd probably be a rich man down the road.

Do you believe that it is possible to reform the two party system, or do you believe it should be done away with completely? Why?

No and no. Right now a person can run as an independent, but without throwing the hat into one of the two rings, it's tough to get the money to run and impossible to collect enough to win. So reformation doesn't have enough grassroots push to it, and I'm doubtful it ever will. But hey, a new generation comes online about every twenty years, so who knows?

Regarding if The Big Two should be dismantled, I'll go with no. The United States is a relatively stable country in the world, and by keeping only two major parties, the stability is near to that of a one-party system. This is not to say that we should go to a one-party system, just that the one-party system has rock-hard stability. Little freedom, but lots of stability.

I know, we ought to be going for more freedom, right? Eh, people are more concerned about jobs, housing, schools, cheap goods at K*Mart, reasonable gas prices -- freedom isn't in the grocery list.

Freedom is for the young who strike out to find it. From my experiences on this, eventually security trumps freedom in all but the most fanatical of types.

The same can be observed in young nations. First comes freedom, then security, eventually leading to stability. Take Iraq for instance. It's in the security-building phase, and I'll bet that freedom has to take a backseat down the road.

Anyway, two parties is a fairly good compromise when the alternatives are considered.

Firstly, I hate to use the specific examples I did seeming like I was picking on Democrats, but rather just giving a general example that occurs in many adults, and even some teenagers (they know everything).

It goes back to the saying "you can't teach and old dog new tricks".

http://newton.nap.edu/html/howpeople1/ch4.html



Children developing problem solving skills are greatly influenced by there surroundings and caregivers.

There is no "certain" age as to what I described happens, and to some people it does not happen. It's not necessarily a bad thing but rather can be a bad thing. Adults have experiences in which they have been greatly influenced by others in the past to help decide on the proper ideal for specific situations. So, basically it's experience that influences our decisions as to how a child has very limited experiences.

The problem with experience is once it's decided many people also close there minds to alternative solutions, no longer being influenced by their surroundings for there problem solving decisions because they already know the answer. So instead of attempting to really listen to the alternative they close there mind to it.

Religion would be a good example of this.

I beg to differ. Existentialist philosophers believe that being preceeds essence. In other words, people develop their essence through experience. There's no way around this. It's not life as I've found it, it's life as am finding it.

Yes, religion is a big "building block," but I've known any number of people who have modified their positions with age/experience.

I should perhaps have been a bit clearer. You're absolutely right that the 1960s were far more contentious in many other ways. What I was referring to was interpartisan nastiness that has infected politics at the highest levels in recent years. I do think this country hasn't had anything like that for a long time, even going back to the Nixon years. I really think a lot of people on the left hate Bush more than they hated Nixon, and conversely, a lot of people on the right have an animus for the Democratic Party that exceeds what existed in the '60s. And I think the War on Terror is the primary engine for that. Before, the threat from the Soviet Union was still more theoretical by comparison (although I remember those days well; I remember lying in bed at night, hearing a plane flying overhead, and nervously thinking, "What if..."). But 9/11 made the threat seem more ever-present and real. And it's made people react very emotionally to these issues.



Opening the system up to more parties can improve stability. When there are only two parties, there's little room for independent thinking, and everyone has to be herded into one group or another. Those who don't follow a party line are branded traitors (sometimes subtlely, sometimes explicitly). That makes it tough to have a civil public debate on anything. Having more parties reduces the influence and power of parties.

Multiple parties are often blamed for the instability of many foreign parliamentary governments, but that's the wrong target. The reason for their instability is often the parliamentary system itself, specifically, the strong dependence that the executive branch has on the legislative in those countries. The proper preventive against instability is an independent executive like the one we have in America, not an artificially limited two-party system. Having a Senate that's elected on a rotating basis instead of all at once helps immensely also.

I'm not saying that adults can't change their mind, simply that adults have more experiences to hurdle over in order to change their mind. Although many adults from my experience seem to have a completly closed mind on alot of ideals.

For instance, many people have made up there mind that socialism is a dirty word and no matter how many studies and facts you can dig up they will not change there mind because it's totally closed to socialism no matter what on any issue.

It's hard nose partisanship... but yes people can change.